Han et al. (2010) published a molecular based phylogeny of
Caprimulgidae from more than 60% of caprimulgid species and 14 of 16 currently
recognized genera. The taxon sampling was broad and included all
morphologically divergent lineages. New World taxa were particularly well
represented. DNA sequences were collected from the entire mitochondrial DNA
cytochrome b gene and parts of two nuclear genes (myelocytomatosis viral
oncogene homolog and growth hormone). All analyses of the 72 ingroup plus
outgroup taxa were conducted on the 4179 characters. The Han et al. (2010)
phylogeny was well resolved and in substantial agreement with all previous
molecular work on the family (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990; Mariaux and Braun,
1996; Barrowclough et al., 2006; Larsen et al., 2007; Braun and Huddleston,
2009).

In proposing a new classification, Han et al. (2010) used the
following criteria: foremost, all named taxa represented monophyletic groups.
Second, for stability of the named taxa, whenever possible, currently
recognized taxa were retained, and when more than one partitioning scheme for a
clade was plausible, they opted for the one that was more likely to remain viable
in the face of new data.

Within core caprimulgids, four strongly supported major clades (3
New World, 1 Old World) provided a natural partitioning scheme, but numerous
taxa needed to be reassigned to reflect the non-monophyly of the current genusCaprimulgus. Additionally, a number
of small or monotypic genera should be subsumed.CaprimulgusLinnaeus 1758 should be restricted to the Old World clade, since the type specimen for the genus isC. europaeus.

This proposal deals with New World clade 3 of Han et al. (2010),
which consisted of caprimulgine generaHydropsalis,Uropsalis, Eleothreptus,Nyctidromus, andCaprimulgus(in part), and the chordeiline generaNyctiprogneandLurocalis.
The followingCaprimulgusspp. are interspersed with the above genera:cayennensis, maculicaudus, longirostris,
whitelyi, parvulus, anthonyi,andnigrescens.

Below is the tree from Han et al.:

Proposed change:

Based on genetic data, New World clade 3 (Han et al. 2010), that
currently is subdivided into seven genera, should be subsumed intoHydropsalisWagler 1832, as it has priority over the
other names (Peters 1940). An unsampled eighth genus,Macropsalis, will presumably
fall into this clade, and it was assigned toHydropsalisas well. Although this course may seem
drastic, the polytomy at the base of this clade makes any other course less
palatable due to the difficulty of defining monophyletic groups. If this
polytomy can be resolved, the taxa currently inNyctiprogneandLurocalismay deserve generic status, either
separately or together.Caprimulgus
candicanshas been shown to be
sister toEleothreptusbased on morphology (Cleere 2002) and
genetics (Larsen et al. 2007), so it also belongs toHydropsalis. Han et al. (2010)
provisionally assignedNyctiprogne(Chordeiles)vielliarditoHydropsalis,
based on the conclusions of Whitney et al. (2003), andChordeiles maculosusandChordeiles
hirundinaceusto this genus based
on their South American distributions.

Comments from Stiles: “YES, with the minor “tweak” that I
would not object to recognizingLurocalisas a genus (and includingNyctiprognetherein if the genetic data were to
indicate that they form a clade, which is not certain at present – both are aerial foragers likeChordeilesover water or clearings, unlike the
remaining species in the broadHydropsaliswhich are predominantlysalliersfrom the ground or a perch. I can’t see any
reasonable basis for more subdivision of the “NW3” clade, since the differences
between the subsumed genera all reflect male ornaments of the tails or wings,
and the often extreme divergences in such feature that can result from sexual
selection frequently obscure relationships.”

Comments from Remsen: “NO. The group is monophyletic, yes, but
violates badly my subjective notion of what a genus should be in terms of
morphological integrity, especially when compared to the other nightjar
clades. Even ignoring the
secondary sex characters, the ornamental plumes of some males, the plumage and
morphological heterogeneity combined with vocal heterogeneity leaves such a
broadHydropsalistotally undiagnosable by any but genetic
criteria.That said, I understand
completely Mark et al.’s rationale for one big genus because if the branching
pattern is correct, there is no pleasing alternative. Recognizing a bunch of
monotypic genera in order to also maintainNyctiprogneandLurocalisis very clumsy, but to merge them intoHydropsalisis worse, in my opinion.I would favor a proposal that broadensHydropsalisto an extent (i.e. to include all taxa
united by the strongly supported node that includes “C.”parvulus(support value 93), but not farther.”

Comments from Zimmer: “NO.I could roll with most of this, but I
have real problems with mergingLurocalisandNyctiprognewith the rest of this group. As Gary points
out, the ecological differences between the aerial,above-the-canopyor above-the-water foragingLurocalis/Nyctiprogne, and the remaining
species, most of which basically sally from the ground or from low perches, are
substantial.I would also note thatLurocalisandNyctiprogneare much more arboreal in their roosting
habits than are the vast majority of the other species proposed for inclusion
in a broadHydropsalis.I’m ambivalent about the inclusion ofMacropsaliswith the others. Even setting aside the sexually
selected extremes in tail ornamentation (which could be argued as just one end
of the spectrum, with species such asH.
torquataandH. climacocercaas being in the middle, and most otherCaprimulgusas being at the other end…), the members ofMacropsalisare also pretty different ecologically
(display flights above the canopy, selection of vertical perches, preference
for steep banks and cliffs) and vocally from the others.I have no problem with the merger ofEleothreptusandNyctidromuswith the relevant New WorldCaprimulgus, and the subsequent
reassignment of all of those to an expandedHydropsalis.So, I would favor some compromise
position, in which we would, at minimum, retainLurocalisandNyctiprogne(merging the two if the molecular data
indicates they form a clade), possibly retainMacropsalis,
and definitely move the others toHydropsalis.”

Comments from Jaramillo: “NO.This creates an unwieldy and
uninformative genus, particularly if it includesLurocalisandNyctiprogne.
Although this may be a monophyletic group, I think there is room here to use
vocalizations and other data to subdivide the genus into packages that are more
informative, even with the unresolved polytomy.”

Comments from Pérez: “NO, I think this is a proposal that
would benefit from inclusion of alternative characters that allow for a more
informative decision. As pointed by others,LurocalisandNyctiprogneare very different morphologically and
ecologically, and the rest of the group is not even well supported by the
molecular data. In the present situation, I could even consider to recognize
some monotypic genera providing more information than a big inclusive genus.”